Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:37 UTC
Google Well, this was about as inevitable as Apple not losing a super-secret iPhone prototype: Google and Adobe have pretty much formed an alliance against the iPhone, in true the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend style. The agreement between the two companies is clearly a big middle finger towards Apple and the iPhone. Update: Apple has finally added a framework to Mac OS X that will enable accelerated Flash video content - something Adobe has been asking for. This should enable Adobe to greatly improve Flash video performance on Mac OS X. Anyone know about Linux?
Thread beginning with comment 420378
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
...
by Hiev on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:49 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Sometimes I don't understand Google, one day it leverage standars and the other it partners with a propietary pluggin company. You can't serve two masters Google.

Edited 2010-04-22 22:49 UTC

Reply Score: -1

RE: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:54 in reply to "..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course you can.

It's called choice. Google is more like the BSD license than the GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by darknexus on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:58 in reply to "RE: ..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Not exactly, but that comparison is accurate for the moment. Let's not forget that Google can change any time if they feel they aren't making enough cash.
Btw, Thom... bad idea. You know what happens when you bring up GPL vs BSD even when the comparison is spot on. Oh well, guess I should go buy some popcorn.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by kristoph on Fri 23rd Apr 2010 00:03 in reply to "RE: ..."
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

By supporting Adobe Google implicitly weakens the argument for HTML5 video, HTM5 games etc. While Flash is prominent few - if any - companies will create dual standard solution because it's too costly.

Moreover, Adobe essentially remains in the innovation drivers seat because without Adobe's support for specific innovations developers cannot deploy them.

Adobe is trying to lock you into their platform. Apple is trying to lock you into theirs. Google, rather than championing an open platform is simply supporting whomever helps them gain leverage against the competition.

]{

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: ...
by darknexus on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:54 in reply to "..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Sometimes I don't understand Google, one day it leverage standars and the other it partners with a propietary pluggin company. You can't serve two masters Google.


Masters? They serve only one master: their bottom line.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Envying1 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:56 in reply to "RE: ..."
Envying1 Member since:
2008-04-22

nO, bUT pROFIT

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: ...
by Jondice on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 22:57 in reply to "..."
Jondice Member since:
2006-09-20

They are probably just using adobe as a stepping stone; they own most of the content that matters already (youtube) and could easily make their own open framework later, as has already been discussed here.

But why the stepping stone? It is a way to quickly improve their standing w.r.t. Apple's mobile division.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Envying1 on Thu 22nd Apr 2010 23:03 in reply to "RE: ..."
Envying1 Member since:
2008-04-22

Google just work like a SAINT to help "users" get what they want, and Google can make profit during this process.

We will see how far Google can go down the road...

Here is one of the replies from the SAINT to its customers.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/22/google-no-longer-investigating-f...

Edited 2010-04-22 23:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: ...
by mrhasbean on Fri 23rd Apr 2010 00:13 in reply to "..."
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Sometimes I don't understand Google, one day it leverage standars and the other it partners with a propietary pluggin company. You can't serve two masters Google.


This is a very good point. Certain people demonise Apple for adopting "patented" technologies rather than "free and open" alternatives yet their choices have consistently been to promote STANDARDS, like HTML, CSS, MP4, AAC and XML, and open industry formats such as ICS and MBOX for situations where there is no gazetted standard.

Flash is NOT a standard, neither is Theora. It's not about the technology being open or patented, it's about what has been adopted as a standard, and trying to promote standards while looking after the best interests of the business and it's investors.

Look at it this way, if I was manufacturing nuts and bolts in a country that uses metric STANDARDS and I decided to manufacture using imperial measurements because a few mechanics were complaining that they already had a heap of tools for imperial sizes, I wouldn't be promoting the standard that had been set, and it wouldn't be a good long term business model. Standards are standards, and they remain unchanged (for the most part) until there is a new standard, then the industry moves on and re-tools to that.

Flash (and Theora) are not standards and are therefore not constants - they can be changed on a whim and there's nothing Apple nor Google could do about it. Google have decided to take that chance, Apple aren't prepared to. Demonise them all you like but them's the facts.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by lemur2 on Fri 23rd Apr 2010 02:33 in reply to "RE: ..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Sometimes I don't understand Google, one day it leverage standars and the other it partners with a propietary pluggin company. You can't serve two masters Google.
This is a very good point. Certain people demonise Apple for adopting "patented" technologies rather than "free and open" alternatives yet their choices have consistently been to promote STANDARDS, like HTML, CSS, MP4, AAC and XML, and open industry formats such as ICS and MBOX for situations where there is no gazetted standard. Flash is NOT a standard, neither is Theora. It's not about the technology being open or patented, it's about what has been adopted as a standard, and trying to promote standards while looking after the best interests of the business and it's investors. Look at it this way, if I was manufacturing nuts and bolts in a country that uses metric STANDARDS and I decided to manufacture using imperial measurements because a few mechanics were complaining that they already had a heap of tools for imperial sizes, I wouldn't be promoting the standard that had been set, and it wouldn't be a good long term business model. Standards are standards, and they remain unchanged (for the most part) until there is a new standard, then the industry moves on and re-tools to that. Flash (and Theora) are not standards and are therefore not constants - they can be changed on a whim and there's nothing Apple nor Google could do about it. Google have decided to take that chance, Apple aren't prepared to. Demonise them all you like but them's the facts. "

In order for anything to become a standard, it first has to be named as a standard. Before that point, there is no standard.

The W3C proposed Theora as the standard video codec for the web. That is becasue, at the time*, Theora was the ONLY viable codec that meets the requirement ... the requirement being that it must be royalty free, and able to be implemented by any party at all.

H.264 is a standard, but it is a standard for applications such as digital TV transmissions and Blueray players. It is NOT the standard for the video codec for the web, because it fails to meet the most important requirement of web standards ... h.264 is not royalty free.

That fact alone puts a huge hole in your argument.

The next point is that the format for Theora is stable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora
The Theora I bitstream format was frozen in June 2004 after the libtheora 1.0alpha3 release

It has been stable since June 2004, six years now. Any Theora video encoded after that point can be played by a current Theora player.

That fact widens the hole in your argument to a gaping chasm.

OK then, finally, if the W3C proposals for HTML5 had been accepted, as they may well have been were it not for Apple's objection, then Theora WOULD be a standard, thereby completely destroying your point.

*PS: If the rumour that Google are going to open the VP8 codec actually eventuates, then VP8 could easily then become a more suitable video codec than Theora is now. Notwithstanding that speculation, as of this moment, Theora remains the ONLY suitable codec to become the standard codec for use on the web.

Edited 2010-04-23 02:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by No it isnt on Fri 23rd Apr 2010 08:34 in reply to "RE: ..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Nonsense. Apple not only doesn't support Vorbis and Theora, they also don't let anyone else support Vorbis and Theora on their platform, forcing people to use proprietary standards (like AAC and MP4) if they want to make content available for Apple customers.

Support for proprietary standards is one thing, actively obstructing support for other standards is something entirely different.

Reply Parent Score: 3